2008 Ford F250 Super Duty on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost loses big power on 87 octane

The 2015 Ford Mustang with the 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder is a pretty potent package on paper. With 310 horsepower and 320 pound-feet of torque, it boasts better performance numbers than the 3.7-liter V6, but with better fuel economy as an added benefit. However, if you're in the market for one of these boosted 'Stangs, you should probably keep in mind that it really prefers to gulp premium, 93-octane fuel. It can drink 87-octane swill in a pinch, but you're going to find significantly less power underfoot when pulling away. While it's not shocking that the ponies are dialed back with a lower grade of gasoline, an alleged page from a Ford training manual obtained by Mustang 6G purports to show just how much power is lost, though. According to this document, the 2.3-liter EcoBoost makes 275 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque when running on lower octane fuel. That's a substantial reduction of about 11.3 percent compared to when the engine drinks 93 octane. Interestingly, according to Mustang 6G, that finding was a bit better than expected, because a Ford engineer reportedly said power would be down about 13 percent without altering peak torque. In speaking with Autoblog, Paul Seredynski of Ford powertrain communications, objected to part of this document. While he couldn't confirm the specific losses listed for the Mustang EcoBoost, "torque remains unchanged" with lower octane gasoline, Seredynski said. He speculated this training manual page was "possibly from before the engine was certified" and therefore showed incorrect figures. Serendynski did confirm that the automaker recommends using 93 octane, and like all modern engines, the software adapts if it's lower. "Peak power would be reduced" by using a lesser grade, he confirmed. Featured Gallery 2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost: First Ride View 20 Photos News Source: Mustang 6GImage Credit: Copyright 2015 AOL, Ford, Mustang 6G Ford Technology Convertible Coupe Performance ecoboost ford mustang ecoboost

2018 Ford F-150 Powerstroke vs. 2018 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel: comparing the specs

Now that Ford has finally released specifications for its diesel Ford F-150, we can finally see how it stacks up against its sole competition, the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel. Naturally, since we haven't driven the new diesel F-150, we can't tell you which is better on the road, but there are interesting things we can glean from the numbers. Compare these and other potential new vehicle purchases using our tool. For one thing, the two trucks are extremely similar from a powertrain perspective. Both trucks use a turbocharged 3.0-liter V6 diesel, with the Ford using a 10-speed automatic, and the Ram using an 8-speed automatic. The Powerstroke engine is built in the U.K. but specifically tuned by Ford for American pickup truck duty. It is also is related to the diesel V6 used by Jaguar and Land Rover. The Ram 1500's engine is made by VM Motori. Only 10 horsepower and 20 pound-feet of torque separate the two, with the Ford getting the slight advantage. The Ford also produces its horsepower and torque slightly sooner than the Ram. Peak power in the Ford comes at 3,250 rpm compared to 3,600 rpm in the Ram, and peak torque arrives at 1,750 rpm in the Ford, and 2,000 rpm in the Ram. View 9 Photos More significant differences become apparent in the payload and towing area, both of which put the Ford at an advantage. The F-150 Powerstroke can carry 2,020 pounds of cargo, or tow 11,400 pounds. The Ram EcoDiesel, depending on configuration, can carry 1,100 to 1,600 pounds of cargo, and tow between 7,560 and 9,210 pounds. Fuel economy might go to the Ford if it hits the company's target of 30 mpg highway. That would beat the Ram's 27 mpg highway. We don't know what Ford's target city mpg is, but the Ram manages 20 in town with two-wheel drive. Four-wheel drive drops the city rating to 19 mpg. View 6 Photos The biggest decider between the trucks might be cost. Ford is only offering its diesel engine on higher end trims, which means that the cheapest diesel F-150 starts at $46,315. That's for a two-wheel drive Lariat extended cab with a 6.5-foot bed. Ram on the other hand, offers the diesel in everything from its ultra-bare-bones Tradesman pickup, allowing for a base price of just $28,585, up to the fancy Laramie Longhorn and Limited trims. Ram's diesel is also available with all cab variants, while Ford's is only offered in extended- and double-cab body styles.

NHTSA investigating Ford's solution to May 2014 power steering recall

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating a complaint that Ford's response to a May 2014 recall of the 2008 to 2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner doesn't quite go far enough to solve a troubling power-steering problem. Roughly a year ago, Ford recalled nearly a million vehicles after it was found that a problem with the torque sensor's communication with the power steering control module could cut steering assistance for drivers. While manual steering would still be available, the problem was enough to ask drivers to report in to have the PSCM inspected, and if necessary, replaced (along with the torque sensor, or in dramatic cases, the entire steering column). That would only happen, though, if trouble codes were being thrown. If there weren't any problems, dealers were told to simply update the PSCM's software so that any issues between it and the torque sensor would simply throw a visual and audio warning – power steering would still be maintained. The petitioner claimed that following the recall work, he still experienced a problem with the torque sensor. According to NHTSA, a claim was made that Ford didn't go far enough in its solution to the problem, and that "the software update itself may in fact cause further issues with the affected vehicle's power steering, causing it to fail, and ultimately requiring replacement of the torque sensor or entire steering column." The petition was filed in early February and is now officially being looked into by NHTSA.